Discussion Board Post Response
Post substantive feedback to two (2) classmates
Discussion Board Post 1
H. Evans
Discussion Board Module 2
Does tort reform help or hinder health care in America? Specifically, review the current
Indiana statute capping malpractice damages. Attempt to find a recent United States case
(within the past 10 years) specifically addressing medical malpractice (preferably Indiana)
and determine if tort reform would have been appropriate in that case?
Tort reform seems to help the health care system in America. It allows the health care
system to reduce the number of claims in malpractice claims. Tort laws allow for
clients/patients to be able to fight for their safety. This means the patients should be able to
fight against any wrongs and doings that may have occurred to them during a procedure.
This also allows for patients to be able to fight against almost all complications. Therefore,
there won’t be any gray area when it comes to what someone can fight against. As for
Indiana, the state allows patients to fight back against malpractice claims. It allows for the
compensations for patients to cap out at $1.25 million. The cap out is beneficial for the
patient and the insurance agencies. When other states don’t put caps on their
compensation, insurance rates increase. To meet the possible compensations, a patient
should report a malpractice claim no later than two years after something happens. In the
case of Lyons v. Lutheran Hospital, tort reform would have not been
appropriate. There are levels within tort reform cases that make it easier to find the
defendant guilty. In this specific case, the plaintiff stated that the fall was caused by the
“defective” neurostimulator. This could have been and not have been the cause of neglectful
caregiving. In this case, the plaintiff won the case due to the rule that the caregiver was
deemed neglectful. The activities within this case tort were explained to be “A legal wrong,
breach of duty, or negligent or unlawful act or omission proximately causing injury damage
to another” (DAVID HAMILTON, 2004). Therefore, the defendant can be held liable for the
cause of death and back pains prior.
DAVID HAMILTON, D. J. (2004, September 15). Lyons v. Lutheran Hospital of Indiana. Legal
research tools from Casetext. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from
https://casetext.com/case/lyons-v-lutheran-hospital-of-indiana
Summary of Indiana’s medical malpractice act. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2022, from
https://www.ismanet.org/pdf/legal/Overview_Med_Mal_Act_summary.pdf
Impact of tort reform on personal injury cases. Justia. (2021, November 12). Retrieved
August 1, 2022, from https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/tortreform/
Discussion Board Post 2
K.A
Module 2 Discussion
COLLAPSE
Tort reform has become a dominant issue in health-related debates mainly due to the ever rising costs of
healthcare. A study by Gallup showed that almost all physicians practice defensive medicine whereby they
order more diagnostic tests, medication, and procedures than needed mainly to avoid lawsuits. As a result,
the extra tests and medications increase the cost of health care with 25% of all healthcare spending going to
defensive medicine (Segal, 2017). The extra costs due to defensive medicine are cited as the main reason for
tort reform in healthcare.
In order to understand whether tort reform would help fix the healthcare sector, it is important to compare
Indiana, a state that has instituted tort reform since 1975, and Kentucky which does not have tort reforms.
Based on statistics by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, doctors in Indiana pay 25% for
insurance on malpractice than their counterparts in Kentucky. However, a study published in the New
England Journal of Medicine showed that doctors from three states that had malpractice reform (South
Carolina, Texas, and Georgia) ordered same number of diagnostic tests and admitted patients at an equal rate
with those in neighboring states with no malpractice reforms (Wolfson, 2016). These revelations
demonstrate that malpractice reform is not a magic bullet that is thought by many to be the solution to
defensive medicine.
The argument for tort reform as solution for defensive medicine is further eroded by a case handled by Steve
Langer (retired president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association) which he represented the family of a
woman who had died after doctors failed to diagnose and treat her bowel. The verdict, rendered in 2009,
awarded the victim’s family $8.5 million but the Indiana Malpractice Act reduced it to $1.25 million (Wolfson,
2016). This is one of many cases where victims, some that are permanently paralyzed, do not get full or fair
compensation and are forced to rely on Medicaid to pay their health bills.
All these instances demonstrate that malpractice reform does not reduce the health care costs nor discourage
defensive medicine hence not a solution to fix the healthcare sector.
References
Segal. (2017, June 15). Traditional tort reform won’t reduce healthcare costs. Physician’s Weekly | A trusted
source of medical information for healthcare professional. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/traditionaltort-reform-wont-reduce-healthcare-costs/
Wolfson, A. (2016, December 24). Louisville news, Louisville sports | courier-journal. The CourierJournal. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-legislature/2016/12/24/indiana-vskentucky-tort-reform-story/95790594/

Purchase answer to see full
attachment